Scotland Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

For the benefit of the Committee, will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the agreement the UK Government have with the Isle of Man and what they are now proposing for Scotland?

[Mr Gauke]

The Isle of Man has different constitutional arrangements. What we are proposing is consistent with the conclusions reached by the Smith commission.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made a number of technical points about how that will work. I accept that a number of details will need to be worked out as part of the fiscal framework. There is a need to agree the methodology for estimating how much VAT is generated by Scotland and by the rest of the United Kingdom. The UK and Scottish Governments will also need to agree the operating principles, including mechanisms for verifying that the methodology has been applied correctly, how many adjustments might be carried out and arrangements for audit and transparency, including publication of results. It is worth pointing out that other countries operate similar systems and could provide a reasonable starting point from which to build.

Again, those considerations will be part of the fiscal framework, and I think that it is agreed on all sides that it would not be helpful to provide a running commentary on it. Of course, there have already been meetings with the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on some of those points. All I will say to the hon. Member for Dundee East is that the UK Government are determined to work constructively, as I am sure the Scottish Government are, to ensure that we reach an agreement that is fair and reflects the appropriate assessment that should be made.

Future Government Spending

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We stand by the OBR’s projections. We have made considerable progress at a time when other economies have struggled and when there has been a eurozone crisis. But for the steps that we have taken, our debts would have risen much more quickly.

Let us return to the position of the Labour party. Where are its answers on deficit reduction? We get the old answers, which are that it would squeeze the rich and reintroduce the 50p top rate of tax. It conveniently forgets that the previous Government had a top rate of 40p for all but 36 of their 4,758 days in office.

The House will want to be aware that our move to the 45p rate cost only around £100 million—a small price to pay for making the international message loud and clear that we are open for business. How much does Labour think that reversing that policy would raise? I am happy to give way to the shadow Minister on that. To say that a return to the 50p rate would bring in an extra £3 billion a year, which is what he implied, is frankly ludicrous, and I challenge him to identify one reputable economist between now and 7 May who will support such a position.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Minister has probably forgotten that when it came to the millionaires’ tax cut, the Labour party abstained and did not vote against it. More importantly, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said that if it were not for austerity, UK GDP would be 5% higher. The tax take with 5% more GDP is about £32 billion, or equivalent to 30% of the current deficit. Does the Minister accept that austerity has been a mistake and that we should have gone for growth through investment?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not persuaded by the argument that if we borrow more we ultimately borrow less—I am afraid that is far too easy an answer.

The Government believe that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed today, that is exactly what is happening. That is why the richest in our society now pay more in tax than at any point under the previous Government. The Labour party can lecture us all it likes about taxing the rich, but it was not on our watch that private equity managers paid a lower rate of tax than their cleaners. It was not on our watch that the wealthy could sidestep stamp duty, or that higher earners could disguise their remuneration as loans that were never repaid. Under our watch, however, every single Budget that we introduced raised revenues from the most well off in society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

Give him both barrels!

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way to the man who believes that the answer to our public finances is to raise fees for gun licences.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

In 2010, the Government inherited an air passenger duty system that needed to be fixed. The changes that the previous Government made in late 2009 caused aggravation to the UK’s overseas friends and frustrated diaspora communities. Clauses 72 to 74 will fix the system by implementing air passenger duty rates for this year and by reform of the rates for next year.

I will address new clause 2 and new schedule 1, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members, and new clauses 6 and 7, tabled by Scottish National party Members. The Plaid Cymru proposal broadly follows the form that was taken to devolve the duty on direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland, and requests a similar devolution for direct long-haul flights from Wales. The SNP proposals seek the devolution of duty on flights to all destinations.

I remind hon. Members that the devolution of duty for Northern Ireland was in specific response to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. It shares a land border with Ireland, leading to a risk of flights relocating from one part of the shared land mass to another. We recognised that risk and acted to ensure that Northern Ireland was not disadvantaged.

The current situation is that airports on the Great Britain mainland face the same APD rates, but the SNP and Plaid Cymru proposals could well lead to the introduction of the same market distortions that our devolution to Northern Ireland sought to prevent, namely the reallocation of flights from one part of the UK to another, leading to distortion in competition, and winners and losers across the UK.

Regional airports are doing well: 2013 was the third consecutive year of passenger growth and our APD banding reform is another confidence boost for the air travel market. Relevant examples include Cardiff airport, which in 2013 saw a 4% increase, equating to around 44,000 extra passengers, with new routes announced to Germany and the Caribbean. In Scotland, there has been 3% growth at Glasgow airport, with almost 206,000 additional passengers. New routes have been announced for this summer to Croatia and Greece. Edinburgh airport has grown 6%, equating to more than 580,000 additional passengers. In the past six months, new routes to Qatar, the USA and Norway have been announced.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the Minister happy, or does he agree with industry figures in Scotland, particularly the managing directors of airports, who believe that that growth has been constrained by APD?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am not sure that I can add much, other than to say that if the hon. Lady is concerned about uncertainty she might want to look at some of the anti-business policies pursued by her party.

We also recognise that air services in some of the more remote parts of the UK represent a vital connection to the rest of the country. That is why there is an air passenger duty exemption for flights from the highlands and islands of Scotland.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful for the exemptions for the highlands and islands of Scotland, but does the Minister think that the devolution of APD to Scotland and Wales would result in an increase in the number of routes, flights, passengers, commerce, tourism and eventually revenue to the public purse? Does he see any advantage to the devolution of APD?

[Mr Gauke]

I wish to avoid running the risk of repeating myself, but I make the point that I made earlier: the devolution of APD within Great Britain would create unfortunate market distortions. As we said in our November 2013 response to the Silk commission, we are not convinced of the case for devolving air passenger duty to Wales, given the potential effects across the country as a whole. In the case of Scotland, the distortive effects across the country as a whole are harder to diagnose, given that it has more major airports with significant route connectivity. Our opinion remains that this requires careful evaluation if we are to be confident of its potential effects, so I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Banking

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I agree with that, and we are focusing the funding for lending scheme on exactly that purpose.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

No, I shall make some progress.

We did not hear anything about the bankers’ bonus tax from Labour today—at least we do not see much about it in its motion—although it is customary on these occasions for Labour to identify yet another spending programme to be funded by it. [Interruption.] I wonder whether there was no mention of it today because the Opposition are embarrassed by previous occasions when they have claimed that more would be paid—[Interruption.]

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, given that it has focused on one particular tax, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. We began with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who delivered a wide-ranging speech in which he made it clear that APD did not constitute a green tax but that, even if it did, he would be against it. He was described by various hon. Members as “trenchant”, “outspoken” and even “abrasive”—and those were the comments from his hon. Friends. However, he set out a strong case on behalf of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK more widely. Interestingly, the motion applies to APD across the UK; it is not specifically a Northern Irish issue.

We heard from the new Economic Secretary—I add my words of welcome to the many warm words already offered—who has already demonstrated that she will be a formidable Treasury Minister. We then heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), whom I also congratulate on her move to the post of shadow Economic Secretary, although I am saddened that she is no longer the shadow Exchequer Secretary. I am pleased, however, that we have had the opportunity to debate again so soon, and I am sure that we have many happy hours together in Finance Bill Committees ahead of us. She was very critical of Government policy although, as her history of APD pointed out, the regime in place is largely the one that we inherited from the previous Government. Despite her criticisms, she did not give us any examples of what she would change, but we were grateful for her contribution none the less.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who has a strong interest both in aviation and in lower taxes, made the point very strongly that we have to reduce the deficit. His injunction that we should not slacken on deficit reduction was sensible advice.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) raised Scottish concerns, citing criticism that APD rates had rocketed since 2007. I should point out that, since 2010, APD has risen in line with inflation—it has been frozen in real terms. That means, for example, that since 2010, the price of an economy ticket for a short-haul flight—such tickets apply to the majority of passenger flights—has risen from £12 to £13. It is worth pointing out that that is an increase of £1. He also raised concerns about the impact of APD on Scotland, but the most recent figures I have—for 2010-11—show that passenger numbers at Scottish airports grew by 5.5%, so they are not being slashed by any means.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and take the credit for the Scottish Government.

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not need to take the credit for the Scottish Government, because the Minister has already given the credit to them, for which I thank him. Can he discern any real difference between his position and that of the Opposition, because I cannot?

[Mr Gauke]

Is the implication of the hon. Gentleman’s question that he managed to identify the position of Labour Front Benchers, because I could not particularly?

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) delivered a thoughtful speech in which he set out the evolution of his own thinking and made the case for regional airports. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised a point on behalf of her constituents who originally come from the Caribbean. Such a point was also made in interventions, so let me reiterate that APD must adhere to international rules on aviation tax—a point that she acknowledged—specifically the Chicago convention. The capital city convention in APD ensures that the duty complies with the rules. She asked why we could not reform the bands. We could move to having two bands, and we did examine that as part of the 2011 consultation, but no banding structure can be entirely free of anomalies, and a revenue-neutral move to two bands would require an increase in APD for about 90% of passengers, including those flying to Europe and the United States. We were not attracted to that approach.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) raised a point about Scotland, following on from the contribution by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. He rightly said that there would be an implication if the tax were devolved to Scotland and then abolished, because the cost of that would have to be found from the block grant. We have not estimated what that would be, but such a decision would have consequences to comply with EU state aid rules. It is also worth pointing out that we would need to take into account any market distortions that would be created and that the cost would have to take into account any lost revenue for neighbouring English airports, for example. That is not an insignificant point.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about domestic flights. It is worth pointing out that several European countries put VAT on domestic flights, whereas the UK does not—the rate is 19% in Germany, 21% in the Netherlands and 27% in Hungary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) made the point that we would like to get rid of most taxes, but we are not in a position to do so. He also highlighted the fact that rates have increased with inflation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) argued that there would be a net gain for the Exchequer if APD were abolished, but we do not agree—I shall set out the reasons why in a moment.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke against the tax and also hoped that we could all unite behind the motion. I am terribly sorry to say that I have to disappoint him on both fronts. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) summed up the debate, arguing that we should perhaps follow the example of the Republic of Ireland, which is not always an argument that I hear from him.

As I have made clear, APD makes a crucial contribution to tackling our fiscal challenges. The tax raises nearly £3 billion in annual revenue. Contrary to the claims of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which has been cited frequently, scrapping APD would not be costless; it would result in a significant loss to the Exchequer. Unless we were to give up on our fiscal goals—my hon. Friends have been absolutely right to highlight the need for us to maintain discipline on reducing the deficit—the lost revenue would therefore need to be found elsewhere, either by increasing other taxes or by further reducing our public spending. In the course of the debate, I have heard few realistic proposals as to how that could be done. Not only would scrapping APD create substantial costs to the Exchequer, but the benefits of such a step would be small compared with those of the policies that the Government have already put in place.

We are not persuaded by the case that has been put before us. We cannot take risks with the public finances, so we will not be supporting the motion.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady may speculate about the reason, but it is not for me to do so. Perhaps I have done enough speculating as it is—

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

Or am I going to be encouraged to do some more? I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr MacNeil]

The Minister talks about the Scottish Government justifying why they should have this power, but have the UK Government given any justification for why they should hold on to the power over corporation tax in Scotland?

[Mr Gauke]

It was about five minutes ago when we last set out the reasons that corporation tax remains a reserved matter. The Bill provides for a substantial devolution of tax powers to the Scottish Government, but corporation tax has always been a matter for the United Kingdom. We are exploring this matter in the context of Northern Ireland, but if there is a case to be made for a radical change in this area, we would like to hear it and we look forward to doing so soon.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

This has been a helpful debate. There is little doubt that the cost of living and the rising price of fuel are difficult issues that affect all our constituents. I thank my hon. Friends who raised issues from their constituencies, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for Devizes (Claire Perry), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke).

When times are hard, things are clearly very difficult, and we understand that people want us to do something. We have to address the deficit. The plans that we inherited were not credible. One plan announced by the previous Government was to increase fuel duty six times over the course of the next few years. The Chancellor will, of course, update the House next week on our plans on all tax matters. I am sure that the points that have been raised today will be fully taken into account.

I will focus on one particular Opposition proposal: the suggested cut in VAT on road fuel. In advance of a Budget, the Opposition seek to find a popular and eye-catching policy to get some headlines and broadcast time. One can imagine the enthusiasm of the shadow Chancellor when he told the Leader of the Opposition of his cunning plan. He wanted to use the money from a tax on unpopular people—our bank levy—to reduce costs for motorists. However, rather than the obvious proposal of reversing fuel duty increases, which might have been a little awkward for the Labour party, he proposed to focus on VAT on fuel, and in so doing to distract attention from the fact that Labour is dropping its opposition to other parts of the VAT increase.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the Minister. I did try to intervene on the Opposition spokesman. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that 37 days ago, on 7 February, there was a debate in this House calling for action on fuel prices, and Labour MPs abstained.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

With the new policy prepared, how could the shadow Chancellor’s plan possibly fail? An interview round was done on Sunday, a press conference was booked for Monday, and an Opposition day was planned for today—I believe by moving aside other plans. However, let us consider what happened. So quickly did the flagship policy of a cut to VAT on fuel unravel that the shadow Chief Secretary, in her 32-minute speech, completely skipped over it. She did not want to discuss it for a moment. What went wrong? The starting point, of course, is that the funds identified by the shadow Chancellor are a one-off amount of £800 million that is available this year from the bank levy. There are no funding plans for future years. Of course, the bank levy should be spent in myriad ways, according to the Labour party—I think it has committed it 10 times over.

Let us turn to how a VAT reduction on fuel duty would be achieved. As has been pointed out, the operation of VAT by EU member states has always been restricted by EU-wide rules. Of particular relevance is the fact that reduced rates may apply to certain specified items, but road fuel is not among them. Under the current rules in the relevant EU directive, we simply cannot do it.

Today’s motion states that we should seek a derogation, and the shadow Chancellor has said that France has obtained a derogation with regard to restaurants. That is correct, and it is perhaps worth describing the process required to obtain a derogation—unless, of course, Labour Members wish to leave the EU. That would liven up the debate, but I do not think that that is their position. If they wanted a derogation, there would have to be discussions with the European Commission, which would have to be persuaded to make a proposal. Each and every member state would have to agree to that proposal, and there would also have to be consultation with the European Parliament.

It is true that a new agreement was reached in 2009 on the list of excepted activities, but that agreement took nearly seven years from start to finish. There is no guarantee of success, either. Opposition Members dismiss the European situation, but they sought derogations to achieve lower rates of VAT for listed places of worship and green energy-saving materials. They were unsuccessful, and they abided by the decision. The VAT directive currently allows derogations only on the grounds of simplification or the prevention of avoidance or abuse, so the chances of success are slim. The shadow Chancellor’s position today is that we should begin a lengthy, and almost certainly unsuccessful, attempt to obtain a derogation that may result in our being able to reduce VAT on fuel in six or seven years.

That is not quite what the shadow Chancellor has been saying recently. On 27 February, on the “Politics Show”, he said in respect of additional VAT on road fuel that the Chancellor

“should say I will reverse that now.”

In The Sun on 28 February, he stated that the Chancellor should “act now”. Again on the “Politics Show”, on 13 March, he said:

“The VAT rise he could reverse immediately and I think he should.”

The same morning, on Sky News, he called on the Chancellor to

“act immediately on VAT…on Wednesday we’ll be urging Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs to join with us in voting in parliament to urge the Chancellor, cut VAT on fuel now and give immediate relief to hauliers and motorists across the country.”

When he says “immediate relief” and that we should not wait until the Budget and that we should “act now”, what he really means is that we should start a lengthy process that just might, possibly, with a bit of luck and with the consent of 26 other member states, mean that we could take some action in about 2018. As an example of immediate action to help hard-pressed British motorists, that is somewhat lacking in effectiveness.

The cynical view is that the shadow Chancellor knew that that policy would not work, but it was enough for him to have something to say to get in the media. The cynics will point out his vast experience in the Treasury—he is, after all, a man with a past. How, they will ask, could he possibly be so incompetent? I think those cynics are being unfair to him. He could be that incompetent. After all, he has told us that he wants to cut VAT to help hauliers, but hauliers can reclaim VAT. He has talked about the cutting of VAT on fuel in the 1990s, but in fact that was domestic fuel. He has talked about asking for a VAT cut on fuel in rural areas, but now asks for a derogation on fuel duty.

If the Labour party is to have a shadow Chancellor who does not understand the tax system and who makes embarrassing mistakes, they would do a lot better with the previous one, who at least did that with a certain amount of charm. Only at the weekend, the current shadow Chancellor told The Guardian:

“My task is to rebuild Labour’s economic credibility, but that won’t happen in a week”.

That will certainly not happen this week. In a desperate attempt to have something to say on a matter of genuine concern, he has come up with a risible policy that is unfunded from next year and that cannot be implemented for years, if at all.

Once again the Labour party has demonstrated that on economic matters, it lacks credibility and competence, and I urge the House to oppose the motion.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Fuel Costs

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The two particular areas we have debated today are the fuel stabiliser and the rural fuel duty rebate, which this House has debated on a number of occasions and is clearly of close interest to a number of hon. Members. The Government have made no secret of the fact that we are considering such a rebate. People in rural areas do face particular challenges on petrol and diesel, as fuel prices there tend to be more expensive because of relatively high transport costs—a number of hon. Members have made that point. A lack of alternatives means that people in rural communities have little or no choice but to use the car, which is why we have announced our intention to introduce a rural fuel duty pilot. It will deliver a duty discount of up to 5p a litre on all petrol and diesel which, as the Economic Secretary said at the start of today’s debate, would save some drivers in rural areas upwards of £500 a year.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I really welcome the rural fuel derogation and hope it comes soon. Will he give us any idea of when that might be?

[Mr Gauke]

As the Economic Secretary stated, the Government are engaged in informal conversations with the European Commission and we hope to be able to bring together our representations in a formal submission to take this forward, but this matter is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman might like it to be. We are considering the exact scope of the scheme, although the inner and outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles and the Isles of Scilly will certainly be included. I say to him, and to other hon. Members such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), that we can go ahead only when we have got clearance from the European Union. It is important to set out proposals that will achieve that clearance and we can then obtain the unanimous support of the 27 EU member states, which is what we require. Productive discussions are ongoing and we will of course update the House whenever we have any further progress. I hope that we will be able to provide a further update at the time of the Budget. Hon. Members should note, as, to be fair, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) did, that at least this Government are trying to make progress on this area. The hon. Member for Bristol East did not even make it clear today whether she supports our even trying to do something on this issue, and that is a remarkable position.

The fuel stabiliser proposal was raised by a number of hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), in particular, has taken a close interest in it for many years. There is an argument that higher oil prices will automatically lead to higher tax revenues. The Conservative manifesto said that the Office for Budget Responsibility would seek to review this policy to see what we could do in this area. We did ask the OBR to examine how the oil price affects our economy in order to determine how the Government could share the burden of high oil prices and see whether a fair fuel stabiliser could work in practice. The OBR’s assessment was that increases in tax revenue received from oil and gas production can be easily offset by things such as higher inflation, which would lead to higher benefit payments and a further drain on the Exchequer. The reality, as set out by the OBR, is that there is no sudden windfall for the Exchequer as a consequence of higher oil prices. None the less, we recognise the strains that this situation causes and we continue to examine a range of options, including the fair fuel stabiliser. It is right that we must ensure that whatever we do is not only fair, but affordable.

This Government understand the problems people are facing and are taking every action possible to help those most in need, but we also know that we have to act responsibly and ensure that we tackle the record national debt. The increases in fuel duty result from the previous Government’s proposals. Some people argue that we could abandon those proposals, but it is not clear whether that is the position of the Labour party. We need to strike a difficult balance, but our priorities are clear. We must get the economy back on its feet and we must have a private sector leading the recovery and creating new jobs. In contrast to our predecessors, we are seeking to address the genuine concerns that exist about rising fuel prices and we are determined to settle on a proposal that is fair, sustainable and fiscally responsible.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend raises. The situation that we face is that there will be difficult decisions to get the deficit down—a point that Government Members appreciate. The difficulty is that looking at the issue on a household basis would mean creating a complex and large bureaucracy. We have come up with a proposal that will ensure that the poorest households are protected and will continue to receive child benefit.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s weekend announcement about a rural fuel derogation, which will make the tax system infinitely fairer in the islands and is a victory for common sense. I first raised the issue a few years ago. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that time was wasted by the previous Labour Government, who sat on their hands and did nothing for the islands?

When will the fuel derogation come into being? Will the Minister acknowledge that, despite that welcome step, we in the islands will still be paying more tax per litre than those on the mainland?

[Mr Gauke]

Was time wasted by the previous Government? Yes. What will the timing be? Negotiations need to be had with Europe, and there will be further announcements in due course.